Let's keep cutting men's sports. Hey.... it's the economy now, not Title IX.
I find this reasoning amusing.
John Smith
=======================================
NCAA's Brand: Don't fault Title IX for Future Cuts
Author: ASA News
Blog URL: allstudentathletes.com/.../ncaabrandtitleix
Description:
Brand expects some schools to drop men's teams in coming months because
of the economic downturn. He is urging them in advance to cite the
economy, not the law that bans sex discrimination at schools receiving
federal funds.
Former Member
Let's pretend that Title IX never happened, and women got no sports scholarships.
Now let's pretend that XYZ University runs into budget trouble and needs to cut scholarships.
Will the football scholarships get cut? Heck, no. It's football.
Will women's scholarships get cut? Heck, no. They don't have any to cut.
The same scholarships would be cut. Title IX doesn't make any difference.
To claim that Title IX has only had positive effects during it's implementation is laughable. To claim that it has not effected secondary men's sports is absurd.
Who has made either of these claims? Yes, they are laughable.
Fact is there is only so much money in the athletic budget pie, and when it's cut up to serve more women than previous, the pieces get smaller for the rest of the recipients.
God forbid we right a wrong and let women have anything if it might affect the privileged male status quo! Do you realize what you are saying here? Again, your problem is the amount of money spent on MEN for football and basketball. Feminists are not to blame for MEN obsessing over these two sports and making the pool of money available for other men's sports smaller. The fact that Title IX forced universities to spend some money on women (when they had been spending none) does not change the fact that football is the main culprit. And you can't blame that on feminists for god's sake. They are the last ones watching football.
. . . Fact is there is only so much money in the athletic budget pie, and when it's cut up to serve more women than previous, the pieces get smaller for the rest of the recipients. . .
Of course football is to blame. It has always been to blame for lop sided and unfair budget decisions. . .
John Smith
I think these get to the heart of the matter. Women, being half the population, feel entitled to half the scholarships. Anybody care to disagree?
If beyond that, football is to blame, then why blame Title IX?
(Also, my wife encourages me to point out that Title IX did a whole lot more for women than mandate scholarships. It ended discrimination at universities, so that, for example, a woman could not be expelled for getting pregnant.)
Again, what I am missing?
Paul:
Let me try to simplify it. People who have enjoyed self granted power/prestige/privilege tend to lash out unfairly and punitively when they see their position eroded. When they come to the realization that hard work will now supplant their previously anointed status they demonstrate what you are seeing repeatedly on this forum.
The nuanced arguments, selective removal of some sports, etc are just a smokescreen.
I just don't get the argument 'if you take out football, men are being shortchanged'
Here's some basic math, schools are CHOOSING to continue football scholarships at such a high percentage % of overall men's total. How is that the fault of Title IX?
Isn't the basic premise of Title IX to provide equal opportunity between men and women? So if there are a total of 130 (just an example) athletic scholarship opportunities for each sex, and 85 (just an example) are used on the men side for football, then gee, that only leaves 45 for every other men's sport. And if football takes up such a large chunk of a school's budget for men's sports, then it's no suprise that other sports are getting squeezed out.
Again, what I am missing? How is it the fault of Title IX that schools CHOOSE to put such a high percentage into football? Should there be an exclusion for football? Then the equal opportuinity check kinda fails.
It seems like this question is being intentionally ignored...
I don't think folks here are necessarily saying Title IX is a bad thing. No, cutting programs cannot be blamed on Title IX. As I said before, Title IX protects both sexes. It is the CHOICE OF THE ADs to blame in how they choose to comply with Title IX. My suggestions above are a way to force a change in the way the courts interpret equal opportunity. This will affect how ADs choose to abide by the spirit of Title IX.
Of course, my husband pointed out that there would not be as much scholarship money available to women if it was not for football. Don't know if I can attack that argument.
My last comment (for know) Amy with regard to your posts is you constantly talk about the "past" with regard to Titile IX...we are all (I think) arguing for the here and the now and that means accept the positives that Title IX created but also the unintended negatives and let's try and get them corrected...when a law is adopted but found to have loopholes in it that allow others to misuse its still a poor law and because those of us who recognize this and want it corrected doesn't mean were all idiots and sexists.
Paul, I've continually said that I agree Title IX is being abused by those in power who want to throw more money at football. I'm not arguing that the law is perfect or being used today in only good ways. I think those of you who keep blaming Title IX alone for all the woes of men's second-tier sports need to phrase your complaints a little more carefully. When you drone on about Title IX being unfair, you need to clarify that you think what the law did in the past was entirely justified. Then, I won't have to refer to the past when I respond. The way some talk about it now, it sounds like you think the law should have been written to protect men back in the 1970's. You also need to address the REAL problem: FOOTBALL. If not for the complete dominance of that sport over all others, Title IX would be of little worry to you.
To be fair, your posts, Paul, have been less Neanderthal in nature than a few others.
Of course, my husband pointed out that there would not be as much scholarship money available to women if it was not for football. Don't know if I can attack that argument.
On what does he base that argument?
I don't think folks here are necessarily saying Title IX is a bad thing. No, cutting programs cannot be blamed on Title IX.
And, yet, there are a few posts on here that say Title IX is bad and the cutting of programs is due solely to its existence. If that's not what they mean, they need to communicate more clearly.
To be fair, your posts, Paul, have been less Neanderthal in nature than a few others.
Although probably not accurate...this may be the nicest compliment I've had in years!! :applaud:
